Through the approximately 700 years that
the Sukuma tribe has been established, the government structure has vastly
changed. This can largely be contributed to African occupation by European
nations. During pre-colonial/traditional rule, the political structure was such
that there was a male or female chief that would serve has the head of the
tribe. There were two main roles of the chief, the first was to hold the
ceremonies for the proper rainfall and weather conditions for plants to grow
and be plentiful, and the second roles was to ensure justice and peace. The
person used to accomplish the goals and fulfill the goals was chosen from any
of the children of the previous chief. The royal family member had a share of
tribal power and they would be the members making the choice of who was to be
the new chief once the current chief died. The chief was selected after the
current chief was dead so that there wold not have to rely on the ministers for
training rather than being too independent. The chief's biggest influences were
spiritual and included things such as traditional healers and rainmakers. If
the chief was performing in what was viewed as an unsatisfactory way in not
properly fulfilling his or her roles, then he or she could be dethroned. The political
structure was pyramidal with the order being chief, traditional doctor, and
blacksmith.
Once colonial influence took place in
the mid 19th century,
society structure changed a little bit. British changed the structure by
forcing the oldest son to be chief, or by electing a new chief once the
previous chief had died. Additionally, the British created the Sukuma
Federation of Chiefdoms where the tribal chiefs would meet to discuss
government policy. The increasing influence of colonial style government began
taking over and replacing the traditional ways. The political hierarchy changed
and chiefs got their directions on how to lead from colonial governmental power
instead of from ancestral spirits, traditional doctors, ministers, or the
people.
By the time independence was achieved by
African colonies, new leaders of nations completely eliminated traditional
tribal structure and the power of chiefs. The Sukuma people were grouped inside
of a country and were viewed as nothing more than members of the country
controlled by the nation’s ruler.
One of the chief's main duties was to
promote peace as was previously mentioned. Because of the placed importance on
peace, the Sukuma people were peaceful and rarely involved in conflict. The
Tatoga people were very friendly with the Sukuma people, largely because they
relied on each other for trade. The only tribe that there has been conflict
with is the Masaai people. Both tribes strongly dislike each other, and mostly
have conflict over cattle as Masaai people believe that all the cattle is
theirs. However, there have not been any wars involving the Sukuma tribe due to
their peaceful nature that has been maintained to present day.
Kwekudee
2013. Sukuma People: Tanzania’s Largest Tribe with Unique
Bugobobobo (Snake Dancing) Culture. Electronic Document, http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2013/03/sukuma-people-tanzanias-largest-tribe.html,
accessed November 5, 2013.
Bessire,
Mark H.C.
Sukuma
Chiefs and Royal History. Electronic Document, http://philip.greenspun.com/sukuma/royal.html,
accessed November 5, 2013.
While researching the Sukuma people there was some challenges while looking for sources. I know that the best topic for me would be something political, but I was not sure exactly what I was going to write about. The more I looked the more I realized that no matter where I looked it seemed like the only information on colonization's effects on the tribe and many different things in relation to Nyrere, the leader of the nation after independence. Upon finding these sources I discovered that I could compare before and after traditional power to show the impact and how it is for the tribe present day.
ReplyDeleteMy first source is from a researcher in Ghana that does research in their free time. In being in the same continent as the tribe the writer has a different perspective than an American that is very far away and has likely never witnessed an African tribe first hand. At the same time the writer's closeness to the tribe both physically and emotionally could possibly limit the reliability as the author might try to portray the tribe in a very positive light. The second source is from a historian who is very knowledgable and seemingly unbias. As always since this source is not from a person within the tribe, his point of view relies on information believed to be true rather than first hand knowledge.
Overall, the sources do have limitations and could have some slight underlying bias. However, all sources will have some limitations and the limitations of these sources are negligible. Both authors are very knowledgable so in the end the are strongly trusted.